In Re Homesite Insurance Company v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00201-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Homesite Insurance Company asserts

that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relator’s amended motion to compel

appraisal in a lawsuit regarding insurance coverage for storm-related property damages.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 2

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2 Relator previously sought mandamus relief in this case on grounds that the trial court abused its

discretion by denying its original motion to compel appraisal. See In re Homesite Ins., No. 13-25-00292-
“Mandamus is an ‘extraordinary remedy’ that is ‘available only in limited

circumstances.’” In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam) (quoting City of Houston v. Hou. Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 549 S.W.3d 566, 580

(Tex. 2018)). Mandamus issues to “‘correct clear errors in exceptional cases.’” Id. (quoting

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). “As

a discretionary writ, mandamus relief is never available as a pure matter of right or

entitlement,” and “a decision granting mandamus relief in one case does not mean

mandamus will automatically issue whenever a similar right or statute is at stake.” In re

Bell Helicopter Servs. Inc., No. 24-0883, 2026 WL 1108684, at *7 (Tex. Apr. 24, 2026)

(orig. proceeding). In determining whether mandamus should issue, we consider whether

mandamus provides an efficient means to resolve the dispute and we apply equitable

principles. Id. The relator bears the burden to establish its right to relief in an original

proceeding. See In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding).

“A writ of mandamus is available to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which

there is no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Lapuerta, 732 S.W.3d 548, 555 (Tex. 2026)

(orig. proceeding); see Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839. “A court abuses its discretion if no

evidence supports the finding on which its ruling rests and if the court could reasonably

have reached only a contrary conclusion.” In re AutoZoners, LLC, 694 S.W.3d 219, 223

(Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We conduct a “benefits-and-detriments

CV, 2025 WL 3254609, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 21, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op.) (denying mandamus relief).

2
analysis” to determine if the relator possesses an adequate remedy at law. In re Auburn

Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136–37. In this regard, there is generally

no adequate remedy by appeal when the trial court erroneously denies a motion to compel

appraisal, see In re Universal Underwriters, 345 S.W.3d 404, 412 (Tex. 2011) (orig.

proceeding); In re Germania Farm Mut. Ins. Ass’n, 722 S.W.3d 282, 287 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2025, orig. proceeding); however, we examine the specific

circumstances presented in each case, and we balance jurisprudential considerations in

determining whether an appellate remedy is adequate. See In re Bell Helicopter Servs.

Inc., 2026 WL 1108684, at *7; In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136–37.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response filed by real party in interest Roberto Garcia, relator’s reply, and the

applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain relief.

Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JENNY CRON
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
18th day of June, 2026.

3